The bill amends 18 U.S.C. 1791(b) to create a new penalty tier: a violation involving a phone (as listed in 1791(d)(1)(F)) under subsection (a)(1) carries imprisonment for up to two years, or a fine, or both. It also makes a minor redesignation/clarification to the statute’s existing paragraphs.
Separately, the bill requires the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to review, within one year, BOP policies on inmates who make, possess, obtain, or attempt to make or obtain prohibited objects and to update those policies “as needed to improve protections for incarcerated individuals and staff.”
This is a narrow, targeted change: it increases federal criminal exposure specifically where the prohibited object is a phone and directs an internal agency policy review. For correctional administrators, prosecutors, defense counsel, and third‑party vendors, the bill alters enforcement risk and creates a near‑term compliance task for the BOP that could change institution‑level practices around detection, discipline, and prevention of contraband phones.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new paragraph into 18 U.S.C. 1791(b) that imposes a maximum prison term of two years for providing a phone to someone in a correctional facility when charged under subsection (a)(1). It also requires the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to complete a policy review and make updates within one year of enactment.
Who It Affects
People who supply or facilitate access to contraband phones (family, visitors, vendors, mail/courier services) and inmates who obtain or possess phones face increased federal exposure; the Bureau of Prisons must review and potentially change internal policies that govern searches, confiscation, discipline, and safety procedures.
Why It Matters
Phones are a high‑risk contraband item because they enable external coordination of crimes and internal communication beyond monitoring; raising the statutory maximum and ordering a BOP review signals a legislative push toward stricter deterrence and operational changes inside federal prisons, with downstream effects for prosecution, institutional procedures, and vendor compliance.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
18 U.S.C. 1791 currently criminalizes providing certain prohibited objects to persons in correctional facilities. This bill adds a focused criminal enhancement: when the offense charged under subsection (a)(1) involves a phone (cross‑referenced to the statute’s definition of prohibited objects), the statute will specify that the offender can be sentenced to up to two years’ imprisonment, fined, or both.
The change is narrowly framed — it targets phones as a distinct category of contraband without rewriting the broader statutory scheme.
Mechanically, the bill accomplishes this by inserting a new paragraph into subsection (b) and shifting the numbering of subsequent paragraphs. It also edits the text of a later paragraph to insert a clarifying phrase related to violations of subsection (a)(2).
These drafting changes preserve the structure of 1791 while adding a discrete penalty option tied to the object type.The second substantive piece requires BOP leadership to complete a review of existing Bureau policies that apply when inmates make, possess, obtain, or try to make or obtain prohibited objects as defined in the statute. The Director must finish that review within one year and must update policies “as needed to improve protections for incarcerated individuals and staff.” The provision gives the agency a short deadline and a broadly stated goal but leaves the specifics of what to change and how to the BOP.Practically, the statutory penalty change affects charging and plea calculations for federal prosecutors and defense counsel because it creates a separate, object‑based sentencing cap.
For the Bureau of Prisons, the mandated review creates an administrative task with operational consequences: the BOP could revise search protocols, contraband handling, staff training, disciplinary responses, and technology countermeasures. The bill does not appropriate funds or prescribe particular policy measures; it sets a statutory direction and a timetable for the agency to follow.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new paragraph (4) to 18 U.S.C. 1791(b) establishing imprisonment for not more than 2 years (or a fine, or both) for violations of subsection (a)(1) when the object is a phone listed at 1791(d)(1)(F).
It redesignates the existing paragraphs (4) and (5) of section 1791(b) as (5) and (6) and inserts a clarifying phrase in the redesignated paragraph (5) referencing violations of subsection (a)(2).
Section 3 requires the BOP Director to complete a review of Bureau policies concerning inmates who make, possess, obtain, or attempt to make or obtain prohibited objects (per 1791(d)(1)) within one year of enactment.
The BOP must update those policies “as needed to improve protections for incarcerated individuals and staff,” a statutory standard that grants the agency discretion about the scope and substance of changes.
The bill’s penalty enhancement is object‑specific (phones) and tied to conduct charged under subsection (a)(1), thereby distinguishing it from other prohibited‑object offenses in the same statute.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the Act’s short title as the "Lieutenant Osvaldo Albarati Stopping Prison Contraband Act." This is purely nominative; it has no legal effect on the statute’s operation but signals congressional intent and subject focus.
Amend 18 U.S.C. 1791(b): new penalty tier for phones
This is the operative statutory amendment. It inserts a new paragraph into subsection (b) that creates a discrete sentencing maximum — up to two years — for violations of subsection (a)(1) when the contraband object is a phone (as cross‑referenced to the statute’s list). The provision also renumbers two existing paragraphs and modifies one to add a parenthetical reference to (a)(2) violations. For practitioners, the mechanics matter: prosecutors can charge under the existing criminal prohibition but now have an explicit statutory cap tied to an object type, which may affect negotiations and sentencing exposure. The amendment does not change elements of the offense or define new prohibited conduct beyond the existing statutory lists.
BOP policy review and updates
Mandates that the BOP Director conduct a review of Bureau policies that pertain to inmates who make, possess, obtain, or attempt to make or obtain prohibited objects as defined in section 1791(d)(1). The statute imposes a one‑year deadline for the review and requires the BOP to update policies as needed to improve protections for incarcerated people and staff. The text does not specify which policies must change, how changes are to be implemented, or whether the review will be subject to external reporting or oversight, leaving significant discretion to the agency while creating a time‑bounded administrative obligation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Bureau of Prisons staff — a higher statutory penalty and a mandated policy review strengthen the legal and administrative tools available to deter contraband phone smuggling and may reduce safety risks from unmonitored communications.
- Federal prosecutors and law enforcement — the object‑specific statutory maximum creates a clearer punitive lever for cases involving phones and may support charging strategies aimed at deterring high‑risk contraband.
- Incarcerated individuals and other inmates — the statute directs the BOP to update policies to "improve protections," which could translate into procedures that reduce violent incidents or scams that sometimes flow from unauthorized phone use.
Who Bears the Cost
- Visitors, family members, and small vendors — supplying or facilitating a phone could now result in heightened federal criminal exposure (up to two years), increasing personal risk and potential legal fees.
- Defense attorneys and public defenders — must account for the new penalty structure in charging assessments, plea negotiations, and mitigation strategies for clients accused of providing phones.
- Bureau of Prisons operations — the one‑year review and any subsequent policy changes will require staff time, potential training, procurement of detection or mitigation technologies, and administrative resources that the bill does not fund explicitly.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing deterrence and institutional safety against risks of overcriminalization and discretionary enforcement: increasing penalties for phones aims to curb dangerous, illicit uses of unmonitored devices, but it also raises the prospect of prosecuting low‑level suppliers (often family members) and expanding surveillance or disciplinary measures in ways that may restrict legitimate communication and impose operational burdens on the BOP.
The bill’s criminal enhancement targets a specific contraband object (phones) rather than broad conduct, but it does not define any exceptions or carve‑outs. That raises practical questions: does the enhancement sweep in well‑intentioned conduct (for example, a relative delivering a device claimed to be benign), and how will prosecutors exercise discretion in charging?
The statute also leaves the mens rea and proof requirements of the underlying offense unchanged, which means courts will continue to interpret elements like knowledge and intent under existing precedent — but prosecutors gain a new penalty lever that could influence plea bargaining dynamics.
On the administrative side, the BOP review requirement is deadline‑driven but substantively open. "Improve protections" is a policy goal, not a roadmap; the BOP can respond with anything from incremental internal guidance to sweeping operational reforms. Without earmarked funding or reporting requirements, the scope of changes will depend on internal priorities and available resources.
There are additional unresolved implementation issues: how updated policies will interact with inmates’ communication rights, attorney‑client communications (if any devices are used for lawful calls), and coordination with state and local systems that manage contraband issues inside their own facilities.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.